ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees under the Geneva Convention act) but faces abuses, ungrounded

accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the very

basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because we are absolutely certain (and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration

bord) that we are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will be turned back to Israel.

We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for a better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were

"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came

to Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel

with the Russian-speaking people can not make what we and our friends suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were

real and happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew

newspaper, in which "Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in

Hebrew accompanied by songs with words like "Russians, go home":They were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so

horrible that if a child is beaten at school "because he's Russian" he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli

but being a Russian.

Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew,

go to a library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about

thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?

When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service

each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards "Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a

single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will. They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to came to the draft

point again and again. One day a new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order

have been sent one day later then the date of his appearance. A couple of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got

it he immediately went to the draft board.

When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted.

Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he

was called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the draft board (the ignored his voluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the

military service. They have treated him like if he already was a soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number as if

he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to

become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking

psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking

psychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it is impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.

When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms

in his case were too innumerable to mention them. During his imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill

boy. When he was released from the military prison (he was in the prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court

took place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a

fully healthy person suitable to the military service.He received some treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did

everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about

the conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the military

commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the possible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights

organizations, Sharansky's Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media, state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we

decided to send a letter to Amnesty International. A friend of us - a dissident and a journalist Lev G. - has contacted Amnesty International

and later submitted several faxes to them. When the authorities realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our

son from the military prison.

We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be

arrested again if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee

claimants. We flied to Montreal in November, 1994.

We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely

described what happened to us in our claim's atory without any distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration

courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings is just incredible...

Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?

Inside The Courtroom:

1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed.

2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges

incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's confirmation of our complain) were mentioned as incomplete proof

of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to these events were

ignored. 4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question

by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was repeated - but this time in an affirmative form:

As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the same answer again and again they shouted on

me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's clear that such a method violates moral and

legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological pressure can not be taken into consideration. 5)

Too often they questioned us giving us no rights to response. They shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later

based their conclusions not on our answers but on their own statement posing it as our - not their - words. 6) It was repeated again and

again that they doubt about our rights to appeal (for a refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good

solution. As examples of "good solutions" were mentioned: A demolition of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! 7) Several times the

bord members expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or by my aproval of the democracy laws. It is absolutely clear that our

case was treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not

to Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position - neither being ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made the

courtroom a part of Israel's territory. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure pro-Israel's

propaganda. It's goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of Israel as a "good"

country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our personal history.

So the only criteria chosen to support the bord's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to

refugees is to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. 9)The members of the board

expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a number of recognized human rights.

10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral

and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty

International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and sometimes falsified the documents. 12) Documents submitted by the

Israeli government, by it's dependents or by it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the

tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documents that were represented by our lawyer (or our documents) - newspapers, statements,

declarations, and so on - weren't treated as equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely

ignored: As if they never existed. In the same time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary

source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of our documents may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) The

immigration officer used 1) an open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed

one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in G. family case (our cases are related,

and G. was called as a witness to our second hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said

about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason

to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is

absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental

illness and the evidence that he can not be asked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We

understood that questions which she asked him were nothing more then a pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has

submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.

Outside The Courtroom:

1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of

a description intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put

everything that happened to his family in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation

distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own inventions and sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation

back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote it by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French

version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent G. from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She

sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions

against Russian-speaking people "to do us a favor" (We think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded

the most important paragraphs in her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions. 3) The

translator also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims.

She told us that she has translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew -but it was a lie. If not our complains to

the lawyer and an alert note we gave to him: No documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board

and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later,

in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel.

Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was doing the translation of his story. The

members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it wasn't

occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This

gentlemen is an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a

humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This

article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he told

him some things which G. never told to any other person. But during our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these

things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no other explanation but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 7)

Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in our cases, is

an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an informative role only.